I'm actually glad that most of the other editors on the page are pushing back against him. Just because you created something cool or useful it does not mean your word is gospel!
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
133 points (94.0% liked)
Wikipedia
3807 readers
107 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately he does have significant power within the wikimedia foundation (parent of wikipedia). He’s got a permanent seat on the board.
Thankfully wikipedia editors tend to act quite independently of wikimedia. But this sort of weighing opinion acting like they have sway on a controversial topic by Jimmy Wales (especially in the midst of wikipedia getting threats from the federal government), worries me a little that wikipedia may have its editorial independence under threat. (A talk page comment is still relatively minor, thankfully.)
wales says all kinds of things all the time. some good, some bad. but after all he is the libertarian who built wikipedia’s anarchistic processes and editorial independence, so i heavily doubt this’ll have any challenge to that independence
While it may look anarchist on the surface. Wikipedia is very much heirarchical and the power lies in few admins.
As an anarchist myself, and someone who has A LOT of edits on wikipedia, I wouldn’t call wikipedia anarchist. Crowdsourced, sure. Anarchist, no. The editor culture is no where near there.
If by hierarchical you mean the role of social capital, I feel like that's how things would function in an anarchist society and I don't see a better solution. If by hierarchical you mean the WMF, then I agree (hence anarchistic instead of anarchist).
power lies in few admins
I don't think so, unless by "few" you mean a couple hundred.
This is why Wikipedia will remain a trusted source for a generation and Grokipedia will be a trivia question in 5 years. Even as people turn to LLMs for knowledge, the talk page and open history with all the old versions archived will make it a respected source of truth.
~~Grokipedia~~
Nazipedia
I think people who shit on Wikipedia for its limitations and cite that schools don’t let you use it for a report are just helping enable the dismantling of a shared reality in society.
Just because you created something cool or useful it does not mean your word is gospel!
He doesn’t claim that, he’s just chiming in with an opinion.
This is the shit Musk thinks is too left wing.
Jimmy is being pushed by IDF or Mossad and just can't handle it
Yes it is contested by the people who are committing genocide and the countries which support them in doing it.
It's contested the same way a round earth is contested by flat-earthers. Earth is round, Gaza is a genocide, and people saying otherwise are either lying or stupid.
Is it really contested per commonly accepted definitions of genocide? I thought it was just a controversial truth to state in public media.
Yeah, it seems the same as saying the 2020 US presidential election results are contested... which is technically true, but it'd be misleading to frame it that way.
Not really unless you count Israeli trolls and proxy-pressure as contesting it.
It is contested. Not here on most lemmy sites or even Reddit. One typically gets banned for even mentioning a subtle deviation from the hive mind, so it's understandable that you wouldn't know.
It is not at all contested per common definitions of genocide, which was the question.
Lawyers call it genocide. Historians call it genocide. International bodies that specialise in discussing genocide all call it genocide.
The only people who disagree are the Israeli government and their supporters. So, Jimmy Wales' position is partisan bullshit.
I don't think it's the place of Wikipedia to put together the UN's opinion and the UK's opinion (to take two examples) and conclude that the UN's can be stated as fact while the UK's can't.
I agree that the UN's is correct, but it makes Wikipedia worse, not better, to ignore disagreement on important subjects.
Do you take the same broad-minded approach to Holocaust denial? Vaccine misinformation? Intelligent design?
I take the same approach, yes: where there is well-established consensus, Wikipedia should state that as fact. Where there is disagreement with the consensus, it should be noted proportionately.
But there is no lack of consensus on the things you mention.
The genocide of Gazans is in the same place: a few ideologically-motivated crazies arguing for the side that is obviously both factually and morally bankrupt.
I agree it's ideologically motivated, but that doesn't affect the fact that there's a lack of consensus. There are serious governments and academics and commentators who disagree.
Probably in time they will see the truth but that's not for Wikipedia to predict.
He keeps saying "this is debated" and "the article fails", but doesn't specific where or how. I think he's just visibly inserting himself into the discussion in order to signal to outsiders that he, personally, disagrees with the genocide claim, no doubt expecting some news coverage of his self-insertion. "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales clashes with editors on Israel genocide claim!" kinda shit. Doing this futile hand-wringing in public using his public account, and responding to half-a-dozen or so comments to make it look like he's engaging, is all that's required for him to be able to look funders and publishers in the eye without being held personally 'accountable' to the genocide deniers he deals with.
Fuck off Jimmy 😴 And shout out to the dedicated editors who are schooling the daft cunt on the rules of his own creation.
I just figured he was trying to save Wikipedia from getting axed by those in power in some countries who are pushing back very hard against anything that has sentences containing both "Israel" and "genocide" in it.
We've hit such staggeringly outrageous levels of "forced propaganda" in the U.S. (people getting fired from their jobs for speaking I'll of a dead guy?) that if I was Jimmy, I'd be worried about the whole thing going away if it catches the eye of the wrong person at the wrong time. I don't agree with what he's doing for whatever reason, but the fact is that while Cloudflare may be able to survive 2.2 whattabytes[sic] per second, Wikipedia will not.
Why is every respectable institution of the day falling all over themselves to commit suicide on this fucking hill
Not like this, Wikipedia.
The article used to begin with that, but it was changed.
NATOpedia moment.
Governments, NGOs, and legal bodies aren't necessarily academic in their research and opinions. So it's not really a good lede.